I simply and plainly disagree with your first statement. And on your second, the quality (or rather lack thereof) of our opposition has been a heavy factor imo.

The situation as it stands, imo, is that Clarke, albeit making runs, is making them extremely slowly, and has been doing so for years. This puts pressure on the side that need not be there, when we have other players that could perform his role as a middle-order ODI batsman more successfully. Although we may still be winning a lot of games while Clarke is doing this, I feel there will be a big game, or a few, where it is a key difference between winning and losing, and could have been prevented.

Believe what you want, I'm not trying to change your mind. I'm just putting my point of view across.

In Clarke's last 25 ODI games he has had
8 100+run partnerships
11 50+run partnerships.

I'm not a massive fan of Chanderpaul as an ODI bat either. The innings he played in the final ODI in England last year was nothing short of a disgrace.

However, batting for the West Indies is a lot different to batting for Australia, so a direct comparison on strike rates is a bit harsh on him.

There's a very good argument that Chanderpaul is one of the best(, most reluctant) ODI openers in the world though.

Stats Guru isn't working for me right now (nor the BBC website, on an unrelated note) so I can't produce the stats, but his performance at the top has been phenomenal for the most part. Particularly in the last couple of years.

Sreesanth said, "Next ball he was beaten and I said, 'is this the King Charles Lara? Who is this impostor, moving around nervously? I should have kept my mouth shut for the next ball - mind you, it was a length ball - Lara just pulled it over the church beyond the boundary! He is a true legend."

If you are suggesting Clarke is comparable to a random club cricketer then you really dont know much about cricket.

You really don't know much about a) me or b) how to read a post if you infer that. No, I am simply making the point that "they won so the team doesn't need to be changed" is a poor mentality. If you think you can better the team, change it; if you do not think you can better the team, do not change it. I couldn't care less about team results - what matters is whether you think the players playing are the best available.

The acid test comes when Australia are set a challenging total to chase. Clarke's been on a massive slump over the past 2 years, one good innings shouldn't relieve the pressure his spot should be under.

His SR doesn't make for good reading, although so far this year he appears to be turning a corner back to his pre-WC form.

There's nothing wrong with plodding along to 40 off 60 balls if you've got the game to change gear and start hitting towards the death. It's for precisely this reason I'd have White ahead of him in the ODI side just now. However, given that Clarke has averaged less than 3 boundaries an innings in the last 3 years, it's debatable whether he's got that side to his game.

If you're going to plod along to 40 off 60 then get out, then it puts too much pressure on the lower order to hit almost from the word go.

edit: Have voted Tests and ODIs because I think if he gets his mojo back, there's definitely a place for him in the side. He shouldn't be an automatic pick however.

His T20 captaincy is a joke. Outwith T20Is, he's played 6 games of domestic Twenty20 cricket, the majority of which were played presumably at Hampshire. He has neither the experience or the talent to be in the side right now, the captaincy should have gone to White.

His SR doesn't make for good reading, although so far this year he appears to be turning a corner back to his pre-WC form.

There's nothing wrong with plodding along to 40 off 60 balls if you've got the game to change gear and start hitting towards the death. It's for precisely this reason I'd have White ahead of him in the ODI side just now. However, given that Clarke has averaged less than 3 boundaries an innings in the last 3 years, it's debatable whether he's got that side to his game.

If you're going to plod along to 40 off 60 then get out, then it puts too much pressure on the lower order to hit almost from the word go.

It's the Owais Shah effect (only Shah doesn't make it that far or that quickly usually)

marc71178 - President and founding member of AAAS - we don't only appreciate when he does well, but also when he's not quite so good!

He should play in all of them. I like the one bounce rule, Pakistan probably loves it.

Originally Posted by Athlai

If GI 'Best Poster On The Forum'Joe says it then it must be true.

Athlai doesn't lie. And he doesn't do sarcasm either, so you know it's true!

'You will look very silly said Mr Salteena with a dry laugh.Well so will you said Ethel in a snappy tone and she ran out of the room with a very superier run throwing out her legs behind and her arms swinging in rithum.Well said the owner of the house she has a most idiotick run.'

I think he should just play tests alone. He's been very good and reasonably consistent in tests while he has always appeared lacking in the shorter formats and generally depends on his batting partner to change games rather than taking on the mantle himself.